The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1887-11-09

(keowco Courier--EditoriaL)
We have read with somo interest, but
with more surprise, the views Of some OF
our leading lawyers on tho defects of the
criminal law, and the escape of guilty
criminals thereby, as the cause for the
frequency and gravity of crimes. They
propose changes i'll system which has
met the approval Of an enlightened CEN
tury and advocate ttem as remedy
against lynch law and the alleged preva-
lence of crime. We cannot hope, III u
single article, to point out all tho falla-
cies in he studied articles Of these dis.
tinguh writers, but will briefly al
ludo to the salient points of error, which,
in our view, they contain.
Before entering on the subject, We will
state that our views OF the criminal law
have always been the reverse Of those cx-
pressed in the articles named, ard when
in the Legislature we suggested u change
in the law, which would give tho defend
ant In criminal prosecutions tho reply iu
argument i'll all cases. We thought then,
and still believe, persons charged with
crimc are put on trial at a great disad-
vantage. 1t Is true, that in theory every
man Is presumed to be innocent until nc
is proved guilty, but in practice, the cor
pus delicti being established, every per
son charged with crime is supposed to
be guilty. This results from our nature.
All honest men haze 4 natural antipathy
TO crime, as affecting ipjuriously, either
directly or indirectly, the security OF
their persons, propurty and reputation,
and from this fact tho mere charge OF n
crime against an individual leads the
public miud in the channel of guilt. AS
consequence every individual charged
18th crime must meet and defeat this
natural inclination, either by proof OF
past good character or direct proof Of
innocence. This position needs no Illus
tration OF it's truth, ior when we read or
hear of any cruel or heinous crime, affect
ing life or property, or even the reruta-
ton of q female, and parry is arrested
for it, We hear the cry, hang him, he
ought to be strung up without iaw or
gospel. Not n few instances have oc.
CURED where this feeling has culminated
III the summary execution Of the alleged
criminal without inquiry as 10, or ploOf
of, guilt.
This characteristic Of. our nature is
doubtless the father OF the right oi Il dc
fendant in capital cases to ClallcUgc pr
emptorily twenty jurors. He hns, and
should have, the right Of tlial by a try
composed of calm, unlmpIssioned men,
free from any bias or prejudice against
him or his counBol or the crime itself tor
there is au innate prejudice against crime
which it is d ilicult Tor any Of us 10 ab-
stract from the person charged with the
crime. This right Of challenge is nett nor
designed nor docs 1t operate as right to
select jury, aud We do not tnnk it
should be abridged, being IN itself wise
and having stood the test Of q century.
Again, in theory the State has Onl the
the right to sit with closed mouth until
the defence has opened out its whole
case, and then in one argument both to
reply to defendant and pie mp the po.nts
for the State. We lave heard cases
where practiccd solicitor by pointed
anecdote or appropriate parable has viz
tually dissipated the argument for the
defence, and then, with track cleared,
has applied facts and circumstances
pointing to guilt, which by a reply could
have been scattered in turn. The Judge
not being allowed, and properly, too, to
charge on the facts, the handling OF them
by an experienced solicitor goes fresh to
the Jury. In this, the defendant is Mt Il
disadvantage, as no lawyer is ignorant OF
the advantage of the reply, which III
criminal cases, in practice, Is both the
argument for the State and the reply to
the defendant. ~
Again, defendants in criminal cases
nre generally poor men, often Ignorant
also, aud neither know nor are pccunu-
rily able to employ efficient counsel. III
capital cases young counsel are generally
appointed to defend them, who have
made no preparation and haveno cXpec-
tation of reward. The State, on the con-
trary, is rich and powerful. 1t not only
salarles and employs eminent counsel,
but awyers, who often have had years
of experience in the prosecution of crim-
inals. They have the criminal law AT
their tonga SIS end and are not only ready
in argument, but well posted ON all ques'
tions of doubtful testimony. In iris,
too, defendants are at great disadyant-
age.
Again, in theory tho State asks the
conviction of no innocent man, but III
practice, from the very nature of the lc
gal profession and from the fact that il
all cases sent up for trial, the State has 9
prima facie case, solicitors, AZ a rule,
though not intending it, prosecute fol
conviction and present in the strongest
light every fact pointing to or bearing on
cnilt. True, in olden times the defend
.s in criminal cases was allowed Dc
ounsel, but then the Queens couuse
,yresented all the facts pro and con-, anC
ieft tho case to the jury. Now there are
two sides in every case, criminal as vel
as civil, and the contest is for q ycrdic
of gnilty on one SIDE and not guilty OF
tho other, each attorney arraying tht
facts of his side to the best oil his ability
This is the practice, and in the strengti
OF the State and the experience OF 1T
counsel, the defendant is at 8 diSaiyant
age. gI3itEusI
Again, the law says 1t Is better tha
many guilty should escape than that on
innocent man should suffer. These cmi
nent writers contend, aud perhaps truly